PREVIEW OF THE DAFCAST WEBSITE FOR CYCLE 13

Please do not forward this link around yet! This is still in development and will be "released", God willing, on August 1, in time for the thirteenth cycle of Daf Yomi.

Disclaimers, Copyright, and Credits

Disclaimers

This is an early draft. I haven't proofread; there are plenty of typos and probably some more significant errors as well.

Most pages on this site are currently auto-translated. The autotranslations are intended as a starting point for my manual translations. At best, they are awkward stringing-togethers of words and phrases in the corpus database that can benefit from cleaning up. At worst, they are picking the wrong homograph. Auto-translations are indicated by italics.

I am not a rabbi or an expert. These are my translations, and in some cases I am certainly misunderstanding things.

The Talmud is a document of its time. While the Talmud is a foundational document of Judaism, it must be read in its historical context. There are passages that are xenophobic, sexist, and irreconcilable with modern science. Not everything in these pages represents contemporary Judaism.

Copyright

This translation is protected by copyright. I'm putting a lot of effort into this project. Please respect that by only copying with my permission.

I intend to provide free licenses for most uses. I plan to use a Creative Commons CC-NC-BY-SA license, which will allow you to re-use my translations as long as you don't charge money for them (NC), as long as you give me credit (BY), and as long as you make your derived work available under the same terms (SA). But I'm not ready to do that yet because this is still a very rough work-in-progress.

In the meantime, if you want to re-use this, please contact me. I am willing to discuss re-use on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps the one page you want to use is actually ready for re-use. Ask. I'll probably work out a way to say "yes."

Credits

I need to clean up this section. But for now, I'll note that I've made use of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Bavli at Mechon Mamre; Jastrow's dictionary; "The Practical Talmud Dictionary" by Yitzchak Frank. I've also used the big three translations of the Talmud --- Soncino (English), Artscroll (English), and Steinsaltz (Hebrew) --- and the Kehati (English) edition of the Mishna, to help me understand passages before translating them.

Go to daf 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.

דף לב,א גמרא

and one ??? one terumah that is tamei and one terumah that is tahor must make restitution Watch out for leading vav plus a fifth ??? They posed this difficulty: ??? must make restitution on account of ??? must make restitution or on account of ??? must make restitution all in a case originally ??? four ??? and in the end ??? No. ??? to you ??? must make restitution on account of ??? that is not ??? For it was taught in a baraita all ??? For ??? to you originally ??? and in the end ??? four What then does it mean when it says on account of ??? must make restitution for he said: for him ??? he ate ??? must make restitution or perhaps, on account of ??? must make restitution ??? he ate ??? must make restitution Rav Yosef said Come and hear: he ate ??? to him ??? upon it blessing If you say, This is satisfactory on account of ??? must make restitution ??? upon it blessing ??? he will give ??? four except If you say, on account of ??? must make restitution why is it that ??? upon it blessing ??? he ate ??? must make restitution Abayye said: In reality lit: In the world on account of ??? must make restitution But why? ??? upon it blessing he was eating something that is not ??? upon it ??? must make restitution something ??? upon it ??? We have learnt in a Mishna: One who eats terumah of chametz on Passover in error must make restitution the principal amount plus a fifth If you say, This is satisfactory on account of ??? must make restitution then the ruling is acceptable. except If you say, on account of ??? must make restitution chametz on Passover son of ??? he yes. So, with whom does it agree? R' Yosi the Gallilean She for he said: chametz on Passover is permitted. to benefit from it If so, I would say at the end of the teaching, with intent is exempt from the laws of restitution ??? pieces of wood If it was R' Yosi the Gallilean why is it that is exempt from the laws of restitution ??? pieces of wood derive it ??? son of ??? as it is taught: Rabbi Nechonya ben Hakanah would make Yom Kippur like Shabbat to restitution and etc. ??? One who eats terumah of chametz on Passover is exempt from the laws of restitution ??? pieces of wood these are the words of Rabbi Akiva R' Yochanan son of ??? he is obligated He said to him: Rabbi Akiva to R' Yochanan son of ??? And so Just as benefit he has of it He said to him: R' Yochanan son of ??? Rabbi Akivah for just as benefit there are ??? terumah that is tamei in the remainder of all ??? the year ??? He said to him: No. if is what you say? Do you really mean that? from terumah that is tamei in the remainder of ??? the year ??? that there is not in it, of his, permission food he has of it permission ??? shall you say in this that there is not in it, of his, No. permission food and not permission ??? this one For what reason this ??? and grapes ??? that there is not in it, of his, No. permission food and not permission ??? In what matters are we saying this? ??? terumah ??? but: ??? terumah of chametz the words of all are It is not "Kedushah" Another teaching (Lev. 22) and gave ??? that which was sanctified for Temple use a thing ??? to be and that which was sanctified for Temple use creates an exclusion ??? terumah of chametz on Passover ??? from ??? pieces of wood --- these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. son of Ya'akov ??? he is obligated He said to him: ??? son of Ya'akov ??? And so Just as benefit he has of it He said to him: ??? son of Ya'akov And so Just as benefit he has ??? terumah that is tamei in the remainder of ??? the year ??? He said to him: No. if is what you say? Do you really mean that? from terumah that is tamei in the remainder of ??? the year ??? that there is not in it, of his, permission food he has of it permission ??? shall you say ??? that there is not in it, of his, No. permission food and not permission ??? He said to him: Even ??? he has of it permission ??? running ??? before ??? or ??? under ???

דף לב,ב גמרא

Abayye said: Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov and Rabbi Akiva and R' Yochanan son of ??? all of them they both reason this way chametz on Passover is forbidden to benefit from it In this case, ??? of Rabbi ??? reasoned on account of ??? must make restitution and Rabbi Yochanan son of ??? reasoned on account of ??? must make restitution This is obvious! What would you have said? Rabbi Yochanan son of ??? also like Rabbi ??? he reasons for himself. for he said: on account of ??? must make restitution and there in that case we were The reason is that he came he is obligated It is because of this: ??? to it like R' Yosi the Gallilean for he said: chametz on Passover is permitted. to benefit from it Come and learn from this. and so go ahead and say Here, too, If so, ??? for him Rabbi Yochanan son of ??? to R' ??? so that thus it will be who searched for him Rabbi Eliezer ??? to R' Eliezer son of ??? The Rabbis taught One who eats an olive's volume terumah must make restitution the principal amount plus a fifth Abba Shaul says: until that it should be in it the value of ??? What is the reason מאי טעמא ??? that came first Scripture states: (Lev. 22) a man For shall eat and that which was sanctified for Temple use ??? and food in the amount like an olive and Abba the grave What is the reason? Scripture states: and gave And there is no meaning to the word ??? less than ??? And the other one also this one it is written shall eat This certain individual creates an exclusion to the one causing damage he who has arrived and it was taught that came first it is written and gave This certain individual should bring himself for a matter of ??? to be and that which was sanctified for Temple use ??? terumah of chametz ??? The Rabbis taught One who eats terumah less than an olive's volume must make restitution ??? and does not must make restitution ??? How so? If it was ??? of him. the value of ??? the principal amount also No. ??? and if for there is of it the value of ??? Watch out for leading vav plus a fifth also ??? In reality lit: In the world for there is of it the value of ??? and even thus immediately ??? of him. an olive's volume must make restitution ??? and does not must make restitution ??? rabbis in front of Rav ??? this one that is not ??? the grave For if it was ??? the grave Watch out for leading vav !! For didn't immediately say in which there is the value of ??? even though ??? of him. an olive's volume He said to them Rav ??? even you say Abba the grave Abba the grave both he is required and who he is required Abba the grave both Hey, isn't it the case that We have learnt in a Mishna: Abba Shaul says: in which there is in it the value of ??? he is liable ??? in which is not the value of ??? he is not liable ??? They said to him: Watch out for leading vav And they did not say the value of ??? except in the matter of the laws of misappropriation of sacred things only. but: ??? he is not liable until that it should be in it an olive's volume and if ??? immediately in which there is in it an olive's volume should bring himself ??? And even Rav ??? he returns of him. as it is taught: (Lev. 5) ??? creates an exclusion ??? Is it not the case that It would be a logical inference for just as the remainder of the commandments ??? of them he is spiritually cut off exempts of them ??? the laws of misappropriation of sacred things where there is not in it he is spiritually cut off is it not logical ??? ??? No. if is what you say? Do you really mean that? in the remainder of the commandments which provides No. he is liable of them death shall you say ??? of it death Scripture states: ??? creates an exclusion ??? He said to him: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak for Rav, Chiyya son of Avin: This a Tanna taught: from the beginning ??? for him he is spiritually cut off and in the end ??? for him death He said to him: thus he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: No. if is what you say? Do you really mean that? in the remainder of the commandments which provides No. he is liable of them death in less an olive's volume shall you say ??? of it death in less an olive's volume He said to him: ??? ??? And he said to him: What then does it mean when it says ??? of Rabbah and Rav Sheishet ??? of him. ??? one ??? for him for he said: